Skip to main content

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: dark.starz Date: Jun 2, 2012 5:34am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: should Romney court Deadheads like Obama did?

Keep the Mormon Church out of the White House!

The Republican machine has a lot of momentum going into the fall election, the “white right” is pissed at Obama as is the financial industry and the Texas oilmen. Rising gas prices, the European/Japan debt crisis, our debt situation and that exaggerated market indicator, (the dow jones industrial average) are reeking havoc on the economic recovery.

The Dow Jones is an average of 30 stocks, but due to the media focus on this silly numerical gauge and many investors moving back to cash right now, there really isn’t much that the Obama administration can do about it. It’s been said that many people vote "with their wallets”.

Both parties have raised insane amounts of money for the late summer / fall media blitz, and even though the fall Presidential debates will look something like Muhammad Ali vs Mother Theresa, there is a good chance that Obama may become the next Jimmy Carter.

If Mitt Romney is elected president, and heaven help all of us, you can expect the following morality play;

A) Reversal of Roe v. Wade
B) Planned Parenthood dismantled
C) Repeal of ObamaCare
D) Gay Marriage adios
E) Medical Marijuana adios
F) Prayers back in the classroom
G) All the great global ambassador / healing work performed by Obama and Clinton hasta luego!
H) I could go on and on

Obama’s strength was surrounding himself with the smartest people in the room. A Romney administration would look something like a “good old boys network”.

Keep the Joseph Smith “loonies” in Utah, a territory they rightfully settled and belong in.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: rdenirojb87 Date: Jun 2, 2012 1:38pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: should Romney court Deadheads like Obama did?

This is one of the most moronic posts you've ever made, and that's saying a lot! Be yourself dude! The effort you put into upholding whatever fake identity you've tried to establish here still amazes me.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: deadhead53 Date: Jun 2, 2012 7:27am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: should Romney court Deadheads like Obama did?

I am sorry that post is ridiculous! While I Consider myself an independent who could vote for either party, you have no idea that Romney would do any of those things. Being from MA he DID NONE OF THOSE THINGS and he even passed a version of universal health care. If you were talking about Rick Santorum ya I would agree he would try to do some of those things but Romney is no hard core conservative and has been center right in the way heh as governed, the Supreme Court will decide the health care bill soon and eventually it will decide homosexual marriage! So please while I am not endorsing Romney by any stretch of the imagination but that would be like someone saying Obama is going to take over business and make this country a socialistic European country and take away our military! No one in America knows what Romney would do in the white house because all candidates say the things they need to, to get elected and then figure out while in office they can't do half of what they said they would do. Obama said he would close gitmo, still open, bush tax cuts would be gone, still there! So to say Romney would do this is ridiculous

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: dead-head_Monte Date: Jun 2, 2012 11:13am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: should Romney court Deadheads like Obama did?

It's all about big media, big money, and special interest politics these days. We, the public, own the electromagnetic spectrum that exists in Nature. Yet we give out Broadcast licenses for free to television and radio stations. Those stations, in turn, use their spectrum to get enormous amounts of money from special interests and from members of Congress. They do this in order to sell ads back to us to influence us. So we lose it in both ways.

Broadcasters have become huge corporate profit machines who make billions of dollars every election season. So not only are they raking it in, they're also creating a toxic environment for civic discourse. It used to be that the news programs that aired, believe it or not, had news on them. They had investigative stories.

But then somewhere in the 1980s, when their 60 Minutes news magazine started making a profit, CBS put the news division inside the entertainment division. And then everyone followed suit. So ever since then, news has been a branch of entertainment and, infotainment, at best.

The other day, the president of CBS, Les Moonves, was reported by "Bloomberg" to have said "Super PACs may be bad for America, but they're … good for CBS." I mean, there it is. CBS chief Leslie Moonves received $69.9 million in compensation in 2011, $57.7 million in 2010, and $43.2 million in 2009.

But there was a time in which the press, the print press, news on television and radio were speaking truth to power, people paid attention, and it made a difference. I don't think the Watergate trials would have happened, the Senate hearings, had there not been the kind of commitment from the news to cover the news.

People don't hear about important issues anymore. They hear these negative charges, which only turn them off more. The more negative stuff you hear, the less interested you are in going out to vote. And so they're being turned off and the stations are raking it in. The people in Washington, DC and the big banks are the ones who get to keep their hands on the levers of power.

So one of the big reasons that things are at the pass they are is that America's founders never could have anticipated that a small group of people, a financial enterprise and the technology could create this environment. Facts, truth, accountability, and stuff like that just aren't entertaining. So because news is not entertaining, because the stations think news ratings are poisonous, they don't cover the news. No one saw this coming. America's founders never imagined the digital information age and its corporate takeover.

Broadcasters don't cover politics and government in the sense of issues. They're happy occasionally to cover horse race and scandal and personality and crime and that aspect of politics. Each year it gets more depressing and it's hard to believe. A 14-year study of the Los Angeles media market looked at every station airing news and every news broadcast they aired round the clock, everything involving locals, from city to county. If you ask, "How much in a typical half hour news was about transportation, education, law enforcement, ordinances, or tax policy, for example?" The answer is, in a half hour newscast, 22 seconds is about serious issues. In fact, there are three minutes about crime, and two and a half minutes about the ugliest dog contest, and two minutes about entertainment. There's plenty of room for stuff that the stations believe will keep people from changing the dial.

These Broadcast stations are earning hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars from the ads that they are being paid to run. And not even risking running a minute of news, which might actually check on the accuracy of an ad. Truth watches, they're almost invisible now. There are consultants who go all around the country and they tell the general managers and the news directors, "It is only at your peril that you cover serious news."

The political square is now a commercial enterprise, owned and operated for the benefit of the brand, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, Comcast, and all of those. The News has become irrelevant. How did this happen? How did we sell what belonged to everyone?

We did it by believing that what we have now is the way things have always been, and this is what it should be. The notion that what goes on is actually made by people, changes through time, and represents the deployment of political power — that notion has gone away. Today, Americans think, "it's always been this way." People are watching fake-news programs on CNN (owned by Time Warner), MSNBC (owned by Comcast and General Electric), and Fox (owned by Rupert Murdoch). Americans think this is how it works. Americans no longer have a sense of history. Many Americans today have no idea where stuff comes from, and no idea how stuff works.

This is amnesia which has been deliberately cultivated by journalism, and by the Entertainment Corporations in this country. It helps prevent people from saying, "Wait a minute, that's the wrong path to be on."

In other words, WE'RE SCREWED!

This post was modified by dead-head_Monte on 2012-06-02 18:13:12

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: dark.starz Date: Jun 2, 2012 7:07pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: should Romney court Deadheads like Obama did?

No need to apologize, at the very least your response and opinion were reasonably intelligent and original in thought.

I've stated this before, "you don't change Washington, Washington changes you." It's not easy for a President to persuade the Congress, Senate and Supreme Court unless you have political party alignment. And yes, Obama certainly has his faults, but let’s remember, he was handed an absolute pile of shit from his predecessor in 2008.

His vision and leadership skills were evident when called to the White House in September 2008 before the election in an intense meeting with Congressional leaders and Hank Paulson over the financial crisis where the key player’s came to an agreement on the outlines of the bailout package. As I recall, Bush walked out on this meeting.

Obama is not taking away our military, the main function of the militaries is to protect and defend the United States, not to conquer and destroy. The reduction on the war fronts and foreign policy healing work is quite an accomplishment after all the global damage created by the previous administration.

Obama has proven to be the most intelligent President of my lifetime and he's had three and a half solid years of experience and a track record of positive accomplishments and until a more intelligent and qualified man or woman arrives, he’s still the smartest man in the room.

The operative heading line in my post clearly stated a "Morality Play". Romney has publicly stated on numerous occasions his stance and position on these important civil right issues ironically spoken from someone who preaches less government, but then again Romney is known to say anything to get votes.

As of 2013, Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be an 80-year-old cancer survivor. Stephen Breyer will be 74. Anthony Kennedy will be 76. Replacing even one of these judges with an Alito-style reactionary would have a huge impact on the development of American law that only start with the explicit or implicit overruling of Roe v. Wade, and a Romney who served two terms would probably be able to replace all three.

Even one term of Romney would probably result in a Supreme Court in which Antonin Scalia (at least until he's replaced with a much younger and even more conservative justice) would have to turn to his right to see the median vote.

Trying to downplay the possibility of Romney fixing an ultra-right-wing majority on the Supreme Court for decades, some pundits will inevitably talk not only about Romney's mythical secret moderation, but also about the unpredictability of Supreme Court justices.

Expect, in particular, to hear a lot about how Republicans appointed David Souter and Earl Warren and William Brennan. But these examples are irrelevant to how a contemporary Republican would choose justices. The fact is, judges selected for ideological reasons are extremely predictable.

Have you ever had the displeasure of sitting down with a Mormon and a Jehovah and asking them to explain why their belief systems are the right one? The bottom line in all of this is Romney's first loyalty is to his religious beliefs, country would be secondary in his attempt to conform country to religious convictions.

When you tell the 1% that they’re going to pay more taxes, expect an organized revolution from high places of wealth and power.

Have a nice day!